Volume 7, Issue 2, March 2019, Page: 41-45
Utility of Frozen Section in the Evaluation of Borderline Ovarian Tumors: A Single Institution Experience
Marilyn Huang, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Miami, Miami, USA
Matthew Schlumbrecht, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Miami, Miami, USA
Tegan Hunter, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, USA
Mehrdad Nadji, Department of Pathology, University of Miami, Miami, USA
Andre Pinto, Department of Pathology, University of Miami, Miami, USA
Received: Mar. 3, 2019;       Accepted: Apr. 9, 2019;       Published: May 6, 2019
DOI: 10.11648/j.jgo.20190702.13      View  111      Downloads  17
Abstract
Background: Borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) account for a 10-15% subset of all primary ovarian epithelial neoplasms. Preoperative imaging and serologic markers are often inconclusive at distinguishing between benign, pre-malignant, and malignant ovarian tumor. Limitations at time of frozen section (FS) are relatively well known, and misinterpretation may occur potentially leading to over- and under-treatment. We evaluated all cases of BOTs submitted for FS in our institution to determine the accuracy of intraoperative diagnosis when compared with the final pathology, and possibly identify features that may guide surgical staging decision-making. Methods: We identified all intraoperative diagnoses of BOTs from our institution in a 12-year period. Clinical and pathologic data were abstracted. Intraoperative pathology diagnosis was compared to final pathologic diagnosis. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square and logistic regression. Results: There were 80 cases included for analyses, of which 39 (48.8%) were serous borderline tumor (SBT), 18 (22.5%) mucinous borderline tumors (MBT), 1 (1.2%) endometrioid borderline tumor, and 22 (27.5%) at least borderline tumor (of various histologies). There were 13 cases with a discrepancy between FS and final diagnosis. In patients with a discrepancy where final pathology demonstrated carcinoma, 4/11 (36.3%) were not staged or had incomplete staging. Subsequently, 3/4 (75%) underwent a re-operation for staging purposes. In patients with discrepant pathology, discrepancy was more common 8/37 (21.6%) among non-gynecologic pathologists compared to 5/43 (11.6%) among gynecologic pathologists, but not statistically significant (p=0.23). When “at least borderline” tumor was diagnosed at FS, 10/22 (45%) had invasive malignancies on final pathology compared to diagnosis of BOT “only” on FS; on which 1/58 (1.7%) had invasive carcinoma. The cases with histologic diagnosis of BOT “only” were associated with significantly reduced discrepancy (OR 0.04 [95% CI 0.01-0.18], p< 0.001). Conclusion: In conclusion, use of intraoperative evaluation for ovarian tumors is a useful diagnostic tool but has its limitations. In intraoperative cases where pathologists call “at least borderline”, strong consideration for surgical staging should be contemplated with re-evaluation of preoperative testing. Moreover, when possible, direct communication between surgeon and pathologist at time of FS diagnosis of BOT may be valuable.
Keywords
Ovarian Tumor, Borderline, Intraoperative Diagnosis, Frozen Section
To cite this article
Marilyn Huang, Matthew Schlumbrecht, Tegan Hunter, Mehrdad Nadji, Andre Pinto, Utility of Frozen Section in the Evaluation of Borderline Ovarian Tumors: A Single Institution Experience, Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Vol. 7, No. 2, 2019, pp. 41-45. doi: 10.11648/j.jgo.20190702.13
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference
[1]
American Cancer Society. www.cancer.org, 2016
[2]
Zanetta G, Rota S, Chiari S, et al: Behavior of borderline tumors with particular interest to persistence, recurrence, and progression to invasive carcinoma: a prospective study. J Clin Oncol 19:2658-64, 2001
[3]
Messalli EM, Grauso F, Balbi G, et al: Borderline ovarian tumors: features and controversial aspects. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 167:86-9, 2013
[4]
Tinelli R, Tinelli A, Tinelli FG, et al: Conservative surgery for borderline ovarian tumors: a review. Gynecol Oncol 100:185-91, 2006.
[5]
Bent CL, Sahdev A, Rockall AG, et al: MRI appearances of borderline ovarian tumours. Clin Radiol 64:430-8, 2009
[6]
Medeiros LR, Rosa DD, da Rosa MI, et al: Accuracy of CA 125 in the diagnosis of ovarian tumors: a quantitative systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 142:99-105, 2009.
[7]
Timmerman D, Van Calster B, Testa AC, et al: Ovarian cancer prediction in adnexal masses using ultrasound-based logistic regression models: a temporal and external validation study by the IOTA group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 36:226-34, 2010.
[8]
Lin PS, Gershenson DM, Bevers MW, et al: The current status of surgical staging of ovarian serous borderline tumors. Cancer 85:905-11, 1999.
[9]
Tinelli R, Malzoni M, Cosentino F, et al: Feasibility, safety, and efficacy of conservative laparoscopic treatment of borderline ovarian tumors. Fertil Steril 92:736-41, 2009.
[10]
Rao GG, Skinner E, Gehrig PA, et al: Surgical staging of ovarian low malignant potential tumors. Obstet Gynecol 104:261-6, 2004.
[11]
Trope CG, Kristensen G, Makar A: Surgery for borderline tumor of the ovary. Semin Surg Oncol 19:69-75, 2000.
[12]
Winter WE, 3rd, Kucera PR, Rodgers W, et al: Surgical staging in patients with ovarian tumors of low malignant potential. Obstet Gynecol 100:671-6, 2002.
[13]
Bige O, Demir A, Saygili U, et al: Frozen section diagnoses of 578 ovarian tumors made by pathologists with and without expertise on gynecologic pathology. Gynecol Oncol 123:43-6, 2011.
[14]
Boriboonhirunsarn D, Sermboon A: Accuracy of frozen section in the diagnosis of malignant ovarian tumor. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 30:394-9, 2004.
[15]
Menzin AW, Rubin SC, Noumoff JS, et al: The accuracy of a frozen section diagnosis of borderline ovarian malignancy. Gynecol Oncol 59:183-5, 1995.
[16]
Robinson WR, Curtin JP, Morrow CP: Operative staging and conservative surgery in the management of low malignant potential ovarian tumors. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2:113-118, 1992.
[17]
Twaalfhoven FC, Peters AA, Trimbos JB, et al: The accuracy of frozen section diagnosis of ovarian tumors. Gynecol Oncol 41:189-92, 1991.
[18]
Morton R, Anderson L, Carter J, et al: Intraoperative Frozen Section of Ovarian Tumors: A 6-Year Review of Performance and Potential Pitfalls in an Australian Tertiary Referral Center. Int J Gynecol Cancer 27:17-21, 2017.
[19]
Bozdag H, Guzin K, Gocmen A, et al: The diagnostic value of frozen section for borderline ovarian tumours. J Obstet Gynaecol 36:626-30, 2016.
[20]
Gultekin E, Gultekin OE, Cingillioglu B, et al: The value of frozen section evaluation in the management of borderline ovarian tumors. J Cancer Res Ther 7:416-20, 2011.
[21]
Snider DD, Stuart GC, Nation JG, et al: Evaluation of surgical staging in stage I low malignant potential ovarian tumors. Gynecol Oncol 40:129-32, 1991.
[22]
Zapardiel I, Rosenberg P, Peiretti M, et al: The role of restaging borderline ovarian tumors: single institution experience and review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol 119:274-7, 2010.
[23]
Ratnavelu ND, Brown AP, Mallett S, et al: Intraoperative frozen section analysis for the diagnosis of early stage ovarian cancer in suspicious pelvic masses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD010360, 2016.
[24]
Matsuo K, Machida H, Mandelbaum RS et al. Mucinous borderline ovarian tumor versus invasive well-differentiated mucinous ovarian cancer: Difference in characteristics & outcomes. Gynecol Oncol. S0090-8258. 2019.
[25]
Shih KK, Zhou Q, Huh J, et al: Risk factors for recurrence of ovarian borderline tumors. Gynecol Oncol 120:480-4, 2011.
Browse journals by subject